NEWS ANALYSIS: Should children’s need for stability and a genetic connection take second place to the desires of adults?

DALE O’LEARY

A supposedly groundbreaking, peer-reviewed study, “When contact changes miinds: An experiment on the transmission of gay equality,” (Science, Dec.12, 2014) was enthusiastically greeted by social scientists and the media.

According to the study, a 20-minute conversation with a “gay marriage” canvasser was sufficient to permanently change the mind of a significant number of people who had previously supported traditional marriage and led them to accept “gay” marriage. The results were surprising, since previous studies had found that changing people’s political opinions was extremely difficult.

When other researchers, hoping to use the technique on other issues, looked into the data on which the study had been based, they found it was essentially worthless. Further investigation revealed that Michael Le Coeur, one of the original researchers, had faked data.

Perhaps if he had been more restrained in his fakery and presented results that were less “groundbreaking,” his deceit might have gone unnoticed. The other original researcher, Donald Green, was forced to retract the study, to the great embarrassment of everyone involved.

The question remains: Why did the peer reviewers and editorial staffs not question the results, which were radically different from all previous research in this area? Why were they not skeptical? And how did Le Coeur think he could get away with faked data and manipulated statistics?

Perhaps LeCoeur thought that, since other invalid, not-projectable or easily refutable studies supporting the homosexual agenda had been accepted and used in legal briefs and judges’ opinions, his study would go unchallenged.

For example, activists claimed that 10% of the population was homosexual, using the thoroughly discredited Kinsey study from the 1940s, circulated widely, until the activists were forced to admit in a court brief that it was closer to 2%.

Several scientists have claimed to have found a genetic cause for same-sex attractions; however, all their studies have been discredited. Other studies of identical twins have found that when one twin is same-sex attracted, in only 11% of the pairs so is the other, making it highly unlikely that same-sex attraction is genetically pre-determined.

Homosexual-rights activists insist that changing one’s pattern of sexual attractions is impossible, which would mean that not one person had ever changed. In doing so, they rejected out of hand numerous studies, personal testimonies and accounts of spontaneous change. A recent study by Diamond, Sexual Fluidity, found that for women spontaneous change is relatively common.

Citing a poorly designed study from the 1950s by Evelyn Hooker, which compared 30 carefully screened homosexual men to 30 randomly chosen controls, activists have insisted that persons with SSA are as psychologically stable as the general public. However, numerous more recent studies have found persons who self-identify as same-sex attracted are far more likely to have a variety of problems.

A meta-analysis of 25 well-designed studies with a total of 214,344 heterosexuals and 11,971 homosexual persons concluded that same-sex attracted men and women “are at higher risk of mental disorder, suicidal ideation, substance misuse and deliberate self-harm than heterosexual people.”

The most egregious manipulation of studies has been the claim made by the American Psychological Association in a 2005 brief, “Not a single study has found children of lesbian or gay parents to be disadvantaged in any significant respect relative to children of heterosexual parents.”

The problem with this statement is that none of the 59 studies they referenced actually proved that there was no difference between children of same-sex parents and married heterosexual parents.

The problem with all studies of the homosexual community is the difficulty of collecting a truly representative sample. Even if a study begins with a large representative sample of the general public, the percentage of “LGBT” persons is so small that the findings may not be statistically significant. If the researchers collect their sample by soliciting the homosexual community, there is a high probability of volunteer bias.

In their book No Basis: What the Studies Don’t Tell Us About Same-Sex Parenting, Robert Lerner and Althea Nagai analyzed 33 of the studies and concluded “that the methods used in these studies are so flawed that these studies prove nothing.” In every case the sample was so small and so unrepresentative of all same-sex parents that no conclusion could be drawn. Not all the studies had comparison groups, and those that did used heterosexual single mothers (a clearly disadvantaged group) rather than married biological father and mothers.

Loren Marks also analyzed the 59 studies and concluded that:

"… not one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA brief compares a large random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large random, representative sample of married parents and their children. Add up 59 zeros, and you get zero.”

On the other hand, there is one study with a larger sample. Mark Regnerus’ article, “How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structure Study,” compared those brought up in intact biological families to those with same-sex parents, adoptive parents, divorced parents and other arrangements. He concluded that:

“Children appear to be most apt to succeed well as adults — on multiple counts and across a variety of domains — when they spend their entire childhood with their married mother and father, and especially when the parents remain married to the present day.”

Regnerus’ study has been criticized for not having a statistically significant sample. However, as it is based on interviews with almost 3,000 adults aged 18-39, of whom 175 reported lesbian mothers and 73 gay fathers, it comes closest to meeting the standard for statistical significance. Rather than parents’ opinions, Regnerus used objective adult outcomes, such as having been on public assistance, currently unemployed or ever forced to have sex against their will.

Other critics fault Regnerus for comparing intact biological families to children of same-sex attracted women who divorced the fathers of their children. Since they are now acquiring children by artificial insemination donor (AID) and homosexual men by surrogate mothering, the critics claim their children will be spared the trauma of divorce.

However, new studies, such as Elizabeth Marquardt and Karen Clark’s My Daddy’s Name Is Donor, suggest that children conceived by AID, whether for a married couple or single woman (same-sex attracted or otherwise), have poorer outcomes than those conceived by natural means. According to Marquardt and Clark:

"… donor offspring are twice as likely as those raised by biological parents to report problems with the law before age 25. They are more than twice as likely to report having struggled with substance abuse. And they are about 1.5 times as likely to report depression or other mental-health problems."

AID children are speaking out, sharing their feelings of loss and demanding to know the identity of their fathers.

The fact is that no finding in social science has greater support than that of the value of married biological parents to child well-being.

An extensive body of research tells us that children do best when they grow up with both biological parents in a low-conflict marriage. Researchers Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M. Jekielek and Carol Emig stated in June 2002, “Thus, it is not simply the presence of two parents, as some have assumed, but the presence of two biological parents that seem to support child development (emphasis in original)."

It appears that two things are key for a positive outcome: family stability and an unbroken genetic connection with one's biological father and mother.

Same-sex couples may try to supply stability, although many do not. The U.S. National Longitudinal Lesbian Family Study presented the best-case scenario for children conceived to homosexual women by AID. Seventy-eight children were followed from before AID conception for 17 years. At that time, 56% of the original couples had separated. Same-sex male relationships also are known to be unstable and unfaithful.

The homosexual community may believe that if they can just get married and eliminate all “homophobia,” all the problems will go away. However, the fact remains that any child acquired by a same-sex couple is by definition separated from one or both biological parents. The genetic connection is broken, and the child experiences that as a loss.

The poignant comedy film Delivery Man tells the story of a guy who donates sperm to finance his father and dying mother’s trip to Venice. Twenty years later, he discovers he has fathered 533 children, 142 of which are suing to discover his identity. The film ends with a montage of his children making the connection, hugging their father.

There is no hint that the parents of these young people didn’t try their best; however, their children’s need for a genetic connection, the need to know their father and be known by him, remained.

The question remains: Should children’s need for stability and a genetic connection take second place to the desires of adults, whether heterosexual or homosexual?

gays are selfish by nature, they do not reproduce or have families, being open about why is only going to hurt children, who are impressionable and need to be protected from such ideas.
And if anyone is teaching my daughter how to perform oral sex I’ll be changing schools and reporting child abuse.

Posted by MarylandBill on Friday, Jun, 19, 2015 9:08 AM (EST):

It is not inherently selfish to want to become a parent. The selfish comes (and mind you there are plenty of heterosexuals who fall into this category as well) when the desire to become a parent trumps the natural rights that the child in question has. Children have a natural right to be raised by their biological father and their biological mother. In the unfortunate event that one or both parents cannot actually raise the child (for whatever reason), then the child still has a right to be raised in a home that provides as close to the ideal situation as possible. Therefore the child has a right to be raised by one biological parent before any one else can take their place, and if neither biological parent is available, then adoption should logically attempt to provide a situation as close to the natural one as possible.

Selfishness comes into the equation when adults put their own desires above the rights of the child. In the most obvious case, by the use of surrogacy, one or more adults can create a child with the explicit intention of denying that child a relationship with one or both of its biological parents. In addition, when same-sex couples demand that they be treated as equally suitable as heterosexual couples to adopt, they deny children the right to have both a father and a mother.

Posted by Mariann on Friday, Jun, 19, 2015 5:25 AM (EST):

Great article! Thanks so much. It would make a great insert for every bulletin at Sunday Mass across the U.S. and translated into every nation’s tongue worldwide. Additionally, it should be posted on the USCCB website as a must read. Please, NCR, don’t let the importance of this article end here. You have the means, time to get the Word out.

God bless you Dale O’Leary!

Posted by ThinkingPerson on Thursday, Jun, 18, 2015 5:42 PM (EST):

Darren,

LOL! If two gay people end up on an island, perhaps their priority would be being rescued rather than having children!

Posted by Donald Link on Thursday, Jun, 18, 2015 3:13 PM (EST):

Thinking Person is not totaly accurate regarding the motives of gay parents. While it might be possible to impute some level of altruism to a few of those who adopt children who are without biological parents in their lives, most resort to various forms generative activity in order to parent. In many, if not most of these instances, there is a desire on the part of the gay couple for justification and normalization. This may not even be consciously realized. Difficulty arises in two area. The first is when the child begins to compare the arrangement with a normative household, even those in which one parent may be absent but in contact with the child. The other is the breakup of the parenting couple which, as been pointed out, happens with greater frequency than with conventional couples. As always, the exception proves the rule but a greater occurance of a social condition with common factors is indicative of causality.

Posted by Darren on Thursday, Jun, 18, 2015 10:18 AM (EST):

Dear Thinking Person,

If you are a “thinking person”, then what happens when two men or two women are on an island and they want kids?

Think about it.

Posted by Darren on Thursday, Jun, 18, 2015 10:16 AM (EST):

Well, I spoke with a lady with 3 failed marriages who said she was gay. It was a cordial discussion on my flight. It did not change my firm belief that marriage is between a man an a woman. I was in the middle and the guy next to me agreed with her. He asked if my son grew up to be gay if I would love him. Well of course I would but I would not approve of any acts toward homosexuality.

I asked about the rights of a child to a mom and dad. I did not get a direct answer to this question. I was responded with what about all the children who don’t have a home to go to.

A mess has been created. The question is now how do we fix it. Through prayer and fasting.

I pray for the two people I met today. I know God loves them. They have just unfortunately listened to the world as we all have at sometime in our lives.

Posted by MarylandBill on Thursday, Jun, 18, 2015 9:56 AM (EST):

It is indeed possible and I regard it likely that in the West, support for same sex marriage will grow and that ultimately, those who believe in only traditional marriage will be viewed as being on the wrong side of history by the great majority of people. That being said, I am not sure it will be a permanent change. I think it is possible that Western Civilization is in an advanced state of decline. Sure it won’t fall this year, and it might remain in a hundred years, but I have a feeling that two hundred years from now, the Church might be emerging from the shadows it was pushed into to pick up the pieces and rebuild a new civilization.

Posted by Rondre on Thursday, Jun, 18, 2015 8:25 AM (EST):

Unfortunately Dale you don’t list studies that contradict all that you state here.

The statistic Dale O’Leary can’t argue with is that those who object to gay marriage will continue to shrink and shrink until their numbers are as insignificant as those objecting to inter-racial marriage. History will view them as fear mongers who were on the wrong side of history.

Posted by Stuart Kenny on Wednesday, Jun, 17, 2015 8:24 PM (EST):

The only reason a child ends up with a same-sex couple is because his biological parents don’t want to raise him. No one is going to stop biological parents from raising their children. No one is arguing that being raised by biological parents who are stable and stay together is best for the children. But when the biological parents don’t want to raise the children, then those couples, same-sex or otherwise, who take on the responsibility are heroes.

Don’t blame the (fictitious) “homosexual agenda.” Blame the biological parents who didn’t want to bother of raising their children. Applaud those couples who do what needs to be done for those children.

Posted by La Farina on Wednesday, Jun, 17, 2015 8:10 PM (EST):

Marriage between one man and one woman is the only marriage condoned by God. Children should be considered paramount as well.

I recently received two reputable facebook notifications concerning the horrendous decision that the Board of Ed will be teaching our 8th graders “anal and oral sex”! The have also decided to teach Kindergarten children homosexuality, transgender. This is absurd. I have already e-mailed my state senators to keep common core out of the education system. I have written them to keep the curriculum and funding separate. This was passed in Virginia and heading to New York and Pennsylvania, and I just saw the EWTN News Nightly about the Gay NC teacher reading book about the Gay Prince to third graders.
Thank you,

Pray tell, more people need to know what is going on.

Posted by ThinkingPerson on Wednesday, Jun, 17, 2015 3:47 PM (EST):

Gay people become parents for the same reason that straight people do. There is nothing inherently selfish about gay people wanting to be parents. If its not selfish for straight people, its not selfish for gay people. Gay people are not “other” “lesser” “different” from straight people.

That gay people want to be parents out of some selfish reason is just right-wing propaganda from those who know they have lost the argument to the those of us who rightfully support equality, justice, and love

Bravo to committed gay and straight couples who provide children with loving homes.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.